• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?

Is Gay Marriage a Constitutional Right in the U.S.?


  • Total voters
    64
Full Faith and Credit Clause:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. "


A marriage is a public act, just like a driver's license is.

I doesn't apply if the state's laws do not allow, or are fundamentally different that the original state. Goob's example is a good one. Having a Carry Conceal permit on one state doesn't allow you to carry in other states unless they have a reciprocal agreement.
Having a permit for Medical marijuana doesn't allow a person to smoke in a state where it's illegal.
 
Not, that's not right. They go into it in more detail in the whole decision at that URL, but the section I quoted says explicitly what liberty they are referring to: "The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Who's freedom of choice to marry is being restricted? People can marry as they see fit. They will not be arrested for that action. That is the point Jerry has been alluding to in his very cryptic fashion.
The point at issue with the same sex marriage is whether they should receive the privileges the government automatically grants to opposite sex marriages. (privileges that many including myself would claim shouldn't be granted in either case) It is a vastly different situation.

If a state quit issuing marriage certificates would people rights be violated?
 
If a state quit issuing marriage certificates would people rights be violated?
Or, if a state repealed all its laws regarding marraige, refusing to recognize all aspects of all marriages, would people's rights be viuolated?

No -- because marriage is a legal status created by the state, and, as such, is necessarily a privilege conferred by, not a right.
 
Or, if a state repealed all its laws regarding marraige, refusing to recognize all aspects of all marriages, would people's rights be viuolated?

No -- because marriage is a legal status created by the state, and, as such, is necessarily a privilege conferred by, not a right.

And the likelyhood of the state repealing marriage rights laws is what?
 
Only in your fantasy world.
Were you going to counter my argument - that, because marriage is a legal status created by the state, it is necessarily not a right, but instead a privilege conferred by the state - or were you just going to attack me?

I'll bet the latter, as I know you cannot pull off the former.
 
Last edited:
The point at issue with the same sex marriage is whether they should receive the privileges the government automatically grants to opposite sex marriages. (privileges that many including myself would claim shouldn't be granted in either case) It is a vastly different situation.

Your argument that marriage is a priviledge and therefore not constituationally protected is incorrect.

The 14th amendment reads:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If a state quit issuing marriage certificates would people rights be violated?

No. If a state stopped recognizing marriage completely that would not be a violation of equal protection. If they don't recognize marriages for some people, but do for other people, then yes, it is violating equal protection which is a fundamental right we have. You don't have a right to marry, you have a right to equal protection of the law.
 
Were you going to counter my argument - that, because marriage is a legal status created by the state, it is necessarily not a right, but instead a privilege conferred by the state - or were you just going to attack me?

I'll bet the latter, as I know you cannot pull off the former.

What you are proposing will never happen. It is like what if pigs grew wings.
 
Your argument that marriage is a priviledge and therefore not constituationally protected is incorrect.

My argument is that the Loving ruling doesn't apply to Same sex marriage.
I have stated that I understand the debate from an equal protection standpoint.
 
My argument is that the Loving ruling doesn't apply to Same sex marriage.
I have stated that I understand the debate from an equal protection standpoint.

Loving determined that marriage is covered by equal protection for level protected classes. The court has not ruled yet whether sexual orientation is a protected class. So, to overturn the anti gay marriage laws they would either need to rule that laws against gay marriage discriminate based on gender, or they would need to rule that sexual orientation is now a level one protected class. So, Loving by itself does not prohibit anti gay marriage laws, but it provides the framework for them to examine the question.
 
What you are proposing will never happen.
Irrelevant.

My argument, the one you continue to dodge, is that, because marriage is a legal status created by the state, it is necessarily not a right, but instead a privilege conferred by the state.

Now, were you going to try to counter that, or continue to dodge it?
 
Haha, are you serious? You couldn't even defeat Prop 8 in the most liberal state in the union. Give me a break.
Citing Prop 8 is hardly a good "litmus test," as you put it, to support your claim that the majority of the country is against homosexuality. You made the claim, so back it up with real facts and figures.
 
Loving determined that marriage is covered by equal protection for level protected classes. The court has not ruled yet whether sexual orientation is a protected class. So, to overturn the anti gay marriage laws they would either need to rule that laws against gay marriage discriminate based on gender, or they would need to rule that sexual orientation is now a level one protected class. So, Loving by itself does not prohibit anti gay marriage laws, but it provides the framework for them to examine the question.

from ruling said:
These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

This is the part of Loving that is different from the same sex situation today. There are no convictions to be overturned because no criminal convictions exist. Without that, Loving would never have happened.

"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender specific discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "

Applying the same sex to the Loving ruling results in a statement that is true for same sex couples. They may marry who they like. (or not)
 
No. If a state stopped recognizing marriage completely that would not be a violation of equal protection. If they don't recognize marriages for some people, but do for other people, then yes, it is violating equal protection which is a fundamental right we have. You don't have a right to marry, you have a right to equal protection of the law.

On this we can agree. This is the reason the government should remove itself from marriage altogether. If the government is going to treat everyone equally, then no distinction can be made for "protected classes" and the such. No classes exist in equality. So the government should not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or familial relations or current marriages. If the government isn't going to give a definition of marriage, (which would certainly discriminate against someone) then they have no way to decide which ones they will acknowledge or not acknowledge. In that case marriage licenses become a moot point.
 
"The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender specific discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of the same gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "

Applying the same sex to the Loving ruling results in a statement that is true for same sex couples. They may marry who they like. (or not)

I don't follow your argument here. Can you explain more?

On this we can agree. This is the reason the government should remove itself from marriage altogether. If the government is going to treat everyone equally, then no distinction can be made for "protected classes" and the such. No classes exist in equality. So the government should not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or familial relations or current marriages. If the government isn't going to give a definition of marriage, (which would certainly discriminate against someone) then they have no way to decide which ones they will acknowledge or not acknowledge. In that case marriage licenses become a moot point.

Ethically I'm not opposed to government stepping out of marriage completely. But on the practical side, it seems like we'd just need to manually create the same sort of list of contracts through a bunch of separate actions. Married couples would need to set up wills, some sort of power of attorney, living wills, some sort of joint custody agreement, co-sign one another's loans, etc. It certainly could be done, but isn't that just basically a more complicated way to do the same thing we have today? What is the advantage of that? Again, I'm not neccesarily against it, just not really clear on the argument.
 
Marriage is a right when you can't get married, but when you can it's a burden :)

I'm kinda kidding, cos I wanna believe in marriage, but I come from a bloodline of broken homes, so it's hard for me.

If a couple wishes to get married, let em have what they want. It's not harming anybody.
 
Citing Prop 8 is hardly a good "litmus test," as you put it, to support your claim that the majority of the country is against homosexuality. You made the claim, so back it up with real facts and figures.
How many states have legalized gay marriage? How long as the issue been on the table? Yeah, I thought so.


BTW, you can look at the poll right above this thread as a reference too, if you like.
 
Marriage exixts because state laws say so.
If you repeal the state laws, marriage ceases to exist.
This, alone, means that marriage is a privilege, not a right, as rights exist independent of an act of creation by the government.

Note specifically that while a state may allow same-sex couples to marry, this marriage need not be rexongized by other states, and is NOT rexongized by the federal government.

I've always laughed at the bolded point - it's a true point - but hte implications are humerous.
*Can't go on vacation* *Can't go see Grandma either*
 
I've always laughed at the bolded point - it's a true point - but the implications are humerous.
*Can't go on vacation* *Can't go see Grandma either*
Not sure how that follows...?
 
Not sure how that follows...?

Just a joke :2razz: You know, one spouse will use it as an excuse not to go see grandma....

On the serious side - I don't consider 'gay' to be biological (it's psychological, a choice, what have you) but I don't consider it be a big enough of a deal to keep people from getting married.
I just don't care that much - it's the least of my concerns when it comes to society problems and so forth.
 
Last edited:
How many states have legalized gay marriage? How long as the issue been on the table? Yeah, I thought so.


BTW, you can look at the poll right above this thread as a reference too, if you like.

How many states have actually had a vote on the legalization of gay marriage in which the citizens of the state all had the right to vote on the issue?

Provide THAT number, then come back with your claim that the majority of the country is against the issue.

Also, the fact that you would point me to a poll done on an internet political forum as proof of your claim is ridiculous. Take a basic statistics course and then you'll see how idiotic that "proof" is.
 
Back
Top Bottom